masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Cerberus Harrier
I obtained the "Cerberus Harrier I", from a Superior Spectre Pack. It's N7 quality. -- 04:02, May 30, 2012 (UTC) Move I propose renaming the page so that the name matches the in-game name like every other weapon page. Mr. Mittens 04:34, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :Oppose. Lancer1289 04:37, May 30, 2012 (UTC) ::Why? The page for the M-8 Avenger isn't called "M-8 Avenger Assault Rifle". Why should this follow a different formula? Mr. Mittens 04:48, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :Support move to Cerberus Harrier. Trandra 05:12, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :Why not just 'Harrier Assault Rifle/Cerberus Harrier'? --DarthWindu 05:20, May 30, 2012 (UTC) ::Because that's not the name of the weapon. The press statement for Rebellion called it "Harrier Assault Rifle", but the game and online manifest only call it the "Cerberus Harrier". Mr. Mittens 05:26, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :::Fair enough, support. --DarthWindu 06:24, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :::: Support, but only if the alternate name is mentioned in the 'The Harrier Assault Rifle is an assault rifle in Mass Effect 3' description at the top of the page, or clearly in the trivia section. SanjayBeast 09:18, May 31, 2012 (UTC) :::::Support. Phylarion 10:37, May 30, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I have started a similar proposition on the Reegar Carbine Shotgun talk page. Contributions appreciated. SanjayBeast 10:54, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :::::::Support. Hefe 10:59, May 30, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::Support for Cerberus Harrier. 06:39, May 31, 2012 (UTC)JeanRalphio :Oppose the move. Yanxa 13:50, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :It has Cerberus logo on it. It's called Cerberus Harrier in-game. Support. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 14:46, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :Support, for the same reasons as Kainzorus Prime. BTCentral 19:31, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :Oppose, it's a stupid idea. Nobody calls the "Mattock/Talon/Hornet" the "Cerberus Mattock/Talon/Hornet". Keep your cancer away from wiki pages, kthx, faggots. Spartan 329 22:21, May 30, 2012 (UTC) ::Wow, that was uncalled for. We're discussing to change the name to what it's called in-game, not making stuff up. Mr. Mittens 22:23, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :::Ah, I wondered how long until I would encounter homophobic abuse on this wiki. does his vote still count, given that he breached wiki guidelines and has misunderstood the reason of renaming? --SanjayBeast 22:24, May 30, 2012 (UTC) ::::Also, this is suspicious as this is the first thing he has done since joining the wiki today, yet acts as if he has been here for a long time. However, he could just never have registered, but if he cares so much about the wiki then why not? SanjayBeast 22:28, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :::::I like the fact that 90% of people that oppose this, admins excluded, are people that don't even have 100 edits to their name and obviously just popped in to oppose the move for the sake of opposing it. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 22:29, May 30, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I like the fact that 90% of people that oppose this, admins included, don't give a reason as to why. Mr. Mittens 22:31, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :::::::As tempting as it is to accuse people of sock puppetry, we presume innocent until found guilty. Please, no more accusations on this page. SanjayBeast 22:33, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :Seriously? You deleted my post. That's against the rules, you hypocrite. At any rate, this is getting out of hand. Let's just wait. Mr. Mittens 22:39, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :Dude, i'm on your side. There was an edit conflict (we were both responding to the abuse at the same time) and i added my stuff, accidentally deleting yours. Seriously, i didn't mean too, especially since i hold the same point of view as you - what do i have to gain from deleting it? Apologies, and with hope that we can get this back on track, SanjayBeast 22:42, May 30, 2012 (UTC) ::It's cool. Mr. Mittens 22:43, May 30, 2012 (UTC) I resent the notion that just because I do not have 100 edits to my name, I do not care about the wiki. I care about the wiki, however, I do not have the programming skills of the people who are able to give us the stats of the weapons, nor do I have the gaming skills of the people who are able to give us the trivia sections. As for my reasoning, you have my apologies, I should have put my reasoning up with my original comment. I oppose this motion for two reasons. The first reason is Spartan 329's argument, though he should keep his homophobic comments to himself. The other Cerberus weapons are not referred to as the "Cerberus name," they are referred to as the "name." My second reason is simply that the current title of the page is more descriptive. If the motion was to add Cerberus to the title, I might support that, but I feel that for these reasons, the current title is better than the proposed one. Again, my apologies for not including my reasoning with my first comment.--Supercavitation 23:35, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :Very true, however I would prefer to go by the in-game names like the Talon and the Cerberus Harrier, as that is what it is referred to in game. If it was referred to as the Harrier Assault Rifle in game, this issue wouldn't exist --SanjayBeast 23:40, May 30, 2012 (UTC) Now that I've dealt with one issue, I will deal with this mess. #Unless we have a confirmed sock puppet, then we cannot exclude a vote. A vote is a vote. #Unless someone has irrefutable evidence of sock puppetry, then we cannot assume anything. If you think you have evidence, then don't accuse them on a talk page, contact an admin. Sock puppetry is an instant perma ban offense and therefore a lot of evidence is needed. #No one has to give any reason for supporting or opposing anything here. If you keep asking for a reason, then I can guarantee you that you won't get it as many people see that as pestering and rude. Someone could have any number of reasons for their vote on the matter at hand, but they are not under any circumstances required to share it. #EVERYONE keep in mind site policies as I will ge giving out a few warnings to people about them. #This is about a vote, not a comment section to bagger and pester people for their vote. There is no place here for that. Everyone can vote any way they want. They are not required to explain why, nor does anyone have to force them to explain way for reasons already mentioned. While on that topic, no one should also force anyone to explain their vote for reasons already mentioned. They can vote how they want and they are under zero obligations to explain why. If you went and asked someone how and why they voted in a real life election, odds are they probably wouldn't tell you and would consider it very rude. #Trying to throw out vote from someone who has less that 100 edits is rude, arrogant, and obnoxious. Anyone can vote in anything, unlike other wikis, we do not have voting restrictions. As pointed out by Supercavitation, someone may have very few edits, but cares about the wiki. Not everyone can be here 24/7. So stop with those comments right now. #Keep things on topic. I realize that this entire comment is missing the point of this, but if this didn't get said here, then none of you would have read it. This section is about taking a vote on moving the article, nothing more or less. Do not pester people for explaining their vote; do not insult others; do not remove other user's comments; keep things on topic and don't wander from it, like I just did in this mini-essay. #If you want to respond to me, then do so on My talk page not here as this has drifted off topic long enough. Now, keep things on topic, cast your vote, either way and we will see where this takes us. No one here is under any obligation to explain their vote. Lancer1289 00:34, May 31, 2012 (UTC) Coming back to topic, I support move of page. 08:43, May 31, 2012 (UTC) :I support the move too and this is no democratic vote (its not secret for example) Lancer, but an open vote. I don't think anyone could feel offended because someone asked for a reason why this could be opposed. This is not about political opinion but about whether ME-ME3 game canon is the highest tier of canon on the wiki or not. --ShardofTruth 10:41, May 31, 2012 (UTC) Whether the move happens or not, a redirect should be made so both searches bring you here Support Infiltrator N7 04:10, June 1, 2012 (UTC) Support. It makes no sense to call it what it isn't called in game. --Ongyoki 22:46, June 1, 2012 (UTC) :I support the move. Arbington 04:51, June 2, 2012 (UTC) ::Support. The Illusive Man 07:19, June 2, 2012 (UTC) Support. In a match, when a kill is executed with the weapon it says "Cerberus Harrier"--AdmiralPedro1stFleet 01:45, June 4, 2012 (UTC) :Support. Make sure "Harrier" links here though. Why it's not called "Harrier" in-game, I have no idea. :/ Alex T Snow 04:53, June 5, 2012 (UTC) Support. TheGenuineBuzz 21:43, June 5, 2012 (UTC) Voting period is over with overwhelming support for move. Article will be moved shortly. 08:12, June 6, 2012 (UTC) Piercing Ability? I would really like some confirmation on this before I add anything. I was playing a Firebase White match and using this weapon on level I, I noticed that this thing is ripping right through Guardian Shields. Can a few people confirm this because if the Harrier can pierce shielding, then it should be noted. The only mods I had were Warp Ammo III, Assault Rifle Damage III, and Densified Ammunition II. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:01, September 8, 2012 (UTC) *Consider that the Harrier is a very accurate weapon, and that you were aiming at the head out of habit, as most people do, even when they have piercing mods. BSN hasn't blown up over this, so I don't believe that the Harrier has innate piercing. Could it have been your weapon mods and not your equipment? Lksdjf (talk) 11:20, September 9, 2012 (UTC) Cover Fire Effectiveness The "Player Notes" on this page make the following two statements, which seem contradictory: The Cerberus Harrier is highly recommended for long range shooting if you stick to cover, as it decreases recoil greatly. Oddly, the Harrier seems to benefit from reduced recoil in situations where it would be expected to be harder to control; "from the hip" fire under cover and aiming while moving seem to keep it on-target better than aiming from cover. This is due to a bug in which the recoil values of the Harrier (in cover and out of cover) are inverted, meaning that it is much more beneficial to overall accuracy if you fire out of cover. Can someone confirm which statement is correct, and delete the other one? Thanks! EDIT: This has been fixed, thanks! Seberin (talk) 16:18, May 8, 2013 (UTC) Cerberus Harrier in-game functions exact opposite of in-universe - Trivia? One of my beloved colleagues believes that the fact that the in-universe Harrier working in no way like the in-game Harrier is not trivia. In the interest of not breaking character and shocking you all by being incredibly, almost pointlessly argumentative, I thought I should open this for discussion. The facts: In-universe, the Harrier is fully automatic, has less recoil than the Mattock, and does less damage per shot. In-game, the Harrier is fully automatic, has more recoil than the Mattock, and does more damage per shot. 2/3 of its distinguishing factors, those that exist to separate it from the Mattock, do not even exist. In other words, this gun is a lie. The supposition presented: Guns working in opposite of how guns are meant to work is not trivia. So, friends, let's discussion. CaptainThunderdude (talk) 07:22, January 29, 2014 (UTC) :There is somewhat of a precedent that has already been set for this sort of situation. :See: Krysae Sniper Rifle, Acolyte :"Despite the weapon description mentioning that it is armor-piercing, the rifle in fact has no base penetration." :This was taken from player notes, not the trivia section. Similarly, I'm about to add a note for the Acolyte about it being perfectly effective against armor. None of this is particularly impactful upon the player experience, nor does it provide insight into the game that is particularly interesting. Lksdjf (talk) 07:42, January 29, 2014 (UTC) ::So what you're saying is, "Captain Thunderdude, I don't find this interesting, so no one can. No, not even you. What? Opinions meaning nothing against other opinions? All being subjective? I could have mentioned that this would be more relevant in the player notes section? Those clown shoes really ARE giving you away? That last comment doesn't even fit the pattern of me reacting to your accusations. You're terrible at this, Thunderdude." ::Something akin to that, yes? CaptainThunderdude (talk) 07:50, January 29, 2014 (UTC) :::Despite Thunderdude obstinate attitude above I find I have to agree that this discrepancy is worth a note somewhere in the same manner as the note for the Krysae, or similar discrepancies for planet descriptions. It would only need a few words but I'm not sure whether its sould be with player notes or trivia. Garhdo (talk) 12:50, January 29, 2014 (UTC) ::::Ah, let's face it, Garhdo. I'd be a way less interesting character if I ever bothered to agree with people. ::::Anyways, I'll wait for one or two more dudes to chip in with a, "Hey, I agree" or a, "Hey Thunderdude, you're an idiot. And those clown shoes are hideous" before I make any edits, that way we can reach a proper consensus. 1083 runtimes favor rewrite, 1079 favor destruction. CaptainThunderdude (talk) 20:02, January 29, 2014 (UTC) Damage data correct? Is the data for the damage in single player and multiplayer correct? In the german Mass Effect 3 Wiki, the damage is identical in single player and multiplayer, while in the english Wiki, there is a huge difference between these values.( 01:08, February 12, 2014 (UTC)) Harrier and squadmates Concerning the recent edit about giving this to squadmates in single-player, I'm not sure how this note makes it different from any other automatic assault rifle in regards to how the squadmates use it. Firing in short bursts and then returning to cover. So should that note stay or should it be made clearer what weapons would be a better choice? Great Mara (talk) 02:36, August 22, 2014 (UTC) :I was wondering about this edit, too. The Cerberus Harrier is one of the most accurate and damaging assault rifles, and has a high rate of fire. It seems ideal for squadmates, as the article said previously. -Sophia (talk) 01:07, December 25, 2014 (UTC)